Don't plan more than you can create yourself. 5 links that connect to real content are better than 50 red links or 50 links to stub pages.

Giving people an idea of difficulty level is good.

Read Cormaggio's idea of multiple paths again, and then abandon the idea of paths altogether. Just offer the subjects, together with an indication of difficulty level (e.g. "typically done in 3rd year of med studies").

Don't assume 50 other med students will join you in the near future. Initially, you may be the only one who can complete things, so complete things rather than leaving them "open" for a not-yet-existent community to complete.

Work in a bottom-up rather than a top-down fashion. Start with one unit. Don't write just a framework - write the whole thing. You'll find that as you progress, you have to modify your approach and do double-backs to change the framework again and again. Once you have a recipe for the first one, the 2nd and 3rd ones will go faster.

I have read your comments and I agree with most of it:

It is too formal

I wanted initially to make navigation easy but there is no need for the codes I agree. If I change the curriculum page to reflect this will you be able to change the page names they link to?

Subject titles will remain

I fully intend to have the red links unreddenned very soon as I create the module pages similar to that of the evidence-based medicine module. Soon, according to 1, they will not be modules anyway, they will be "learning" resources or something with a different name in an effort to de-formalise. There will be very few red links I think at that stage and then I will just begin moving module to module.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. In the department pages and module pages it gives the level to which they belong according to the curriculum. I am not sure what you are asking for but I suppose I could put their real-world levels in there too. Or maybe put the levels in the lessons as well, maybe on the curriculum main page. Alert me if I have missed the point on this one :)

There are two paths at the moment in the school of medicine. One follows a real-world pathway based on difficulty level, the other allows links to departments, which will soon have lessons on their main page. Do you advocate scrapping the curriculum page?

I don't, but I understand why you think I do. My plan of action is very vague and I am happy to be more specific with you if you like regarding my ideas but for the meantime my next steps involve categorizing all the medical pages that currently exist according to department and then choosing a department at a time to create lessons. Example, I will have a subcategory, I think, called evidence-based medicine and I will be able to sort the pages into lessons to complete the department very soon. The other departments will remain open so that anybody who happens to join has a place of reference if they wish to choose a sepcialty to work on. But these departments will have no red links until I have decided that it is the department I wish to work on next. Content will be added rapidly to the school of medicine I assure you and it is not outside one person's capability. The content will need improvement and I plan to constantly review all content one department at a time.

This is referring to my previous actions I think, rather than my current ones. The tree of knowledge is actually 'a tree'! I wanted to start at the trunk and then work at each branch one-by-one. The trunk is complete and I assure you that things will happen from the bottom up from my next point of action.

I can see this project is pretty dead =( I don't like the current curriculum, I feel there is too much focus on specialty that is usually a postgraduate development. Should be teaching the solid basics. Whilst this proposed list includes specialties, I would like that to change. Think in organ systems, not specialties. What can go wrong with each system? Ideally, 11 pathology modules to match the structure and functiton modules. But, I know this will not be possible and extra topics are needed for multisystem themes like oncologyLesion (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I took the liberty of highlighting some of your Medical School Curriculum suggestions to indicate that at least some pages exist, but most of these are very incomplete as any kind of learning resource. It is really trying I guess to create courses, lectures and such. --Marshallsumter (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I thin the curriculum is pretty cool. All these subjects will help people all around since the curriculum includes subjects that are required for both Clinical Medicine and M.B.B.S program. Being a medical student I am looing forward to the completion of this school since it will be a great help as reference and further studies.

I am not too interested in the whole departments / course codes debate, but the whole controversy of curricula in medicine is fascinating. I have moved some discussion points here from the School:Medicine page for ongoing development. There has to be a good way to give people guidance about what to learn first / next and what is critical knowledge vs trivia in medicine, preferably without all the fluff and padding that makes many curriculum outlines fairly useless.

Basically, I'd like students to have a guide for each topic that:

shows them where to start

lets them check whether they have covered the essentials

points them towards things they could learn next

is practical, readable and navigable

Other discussion points:

Medicine appears nebulous but it contains a solid core of knowledge and skills.

While there will always be room on Wikiversity for multiple ways of doing things, the current focus of this redevelopment is currently medicine as a whole, not speciality-focused departments, subdepartments and little boxes. Why? Because modern medicine has some very major problems with overspecialisation (aka 'Left Big Toe Surgeons') and information silos. Let's not add to the problem by closing down this School into mimics of the same departments who don't talk to each other all day in the hospital (let alone people working outside their hospital). Instead, let's just try a back-to-basics, whole-person approach. There are plenty of anatomical/physiological/pathological ways of dividing up medicine, they all overlap, and when they do you don't get to let the patient fall into a crack because it's 'not your area'.

Medicine may appear nebulous, but it has a very solid core. Yes there are plenty of sceptics of all things curriculum-related, but it should be possible (even useful) to define practical medical learning objectives for things that people in various roles and stages must / should / might know (e.g. must = recognise shockable rhythms, for clear practical reasons). Opinions will likely differ, but multiple versions of what people consider essential/optional knowledge may all help students to form their own learning objectives, rather than relying on a central committee to dictate what must be learned. Let's also aim to make Wikiversity include a collection of things you 'might' like to learn for mastery rather than just to pass exams, including promising new / emerging ideas that are unlikely to feature in traditional college exams at present. (Some of these new ideas might actually do a better job of saving your patient).

Real world outcomes are what matter. If someone cannot recall a procedure/treatment/test but can look it up in a timely manner, there is no problem. Unconscious incompetence and not knowing you need to look it up is a problem. Failing to look it up because you are determined to be independent is also a problem if the patient receives wrong/outdated care as a result. There is more to good medicine than memorising the right facts. The use of cognitive aids (checklists, equipment dumps, pathways, protocols and guidelines) should be encouraged and facilitated through all stages of medical training and practice.

Just-in-time learning vs. just-in-case learning... (to be continued)

Another major problem to be addressed is premature diagnostic closure...

A general sequence of goals in learning to manage medical problems could be:

Be able to identify when there is a problem (i.e. normal vs abnormal): people who can do this can then call for help and make a meaningful contribution to patient care in doing so.

Learn how to treat the problem empirically or symptomatically: by knowing basic physiological mechanisms, people can put treatments in place to oppose the problem, even if they do not know the cause. This may limit or slow progression of disease processes, and may be sufficient to allow the body to heal for self-resolving processes.

Be able to define the cause(s): people who have greater knowledge of anatomy and pathological / physiological processes, how they are interrelated and how to find evidence for them through history, examination and investigation, might be able to identify the source(s) of the problem. Being ever more aware of the perils of premature closure, this may not lead to a fixed diagnosis. Instead, the problem may become more defined in terms of its anatomical, physiological and pathological effects (Where and what is it affecting, how and why is it effecting it?)

Be able to treat the cause(s): eliminating the cause of a problem requires the above theory as well as practical skills in how to make things happen including communication, coordination and technical skills.

Develop a greater ability to anticipate future problems, prevent recurrence and manage complications: people with the greatest knowledge might be able to treat not only the presenting problem but also monitor and treat its causes and consequences (actual and anticipated) simultaneously to give the best chance of health.